Dawn Meredith

It wans't just the MSM, it was also the blogosphere which rose up against Caroline. This is what convinced me that the blogosphere was going to be little different than the MSM. The following column really ticked off Jane Hamsher. As it shoudl have. http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html Perhaps it was the fact she had absolutely no qualifications other than her pedigree. That is bullcrap. She has a law degree. She has written books. She UNDERSTANDS the constitution. She has as much qualification, if not way more than most candidates. The media was horrendous. That's because they are- by choice- ignorant when it comes to the assassinations. In fact I'd go so far as to say that attacking her the way it did the CIA's Operation Mockingbird got rid of her and let her live. Unlike her brother, father and uncle. Dawn

I couldn't disagree more with this, terribly unfounded. Almost Chomskyian really. Let us start with JFK. If you have not read RIchard Mahoney's JFK:Ordeal in Africa, then you have no real insight into how Kennedy developed his views on the Third World, and his consequent open challenges to the COld War orthodoxy of John Foster Dulles and Eisenhower. It wasn't that some Old Money group "cleaned them up" etc. When Kennedy went to Saigon in 1951, he ditched his French escorts and sought out the best American reporters and diplomats, sometimes knocking on their doors late at night. And then staying late to pick their brains as to the true circumstances of the French colonial state. When he got back, he then tried to make some speeches for Adlai Stevenson's presidential campaign. But they were deemed as to radical and provocative. So Stevenson told him to stop it. Then when JFK got word about the Dulles/Nixon idea to use atomic weapons at Dein Bien Phu, he issued a press release and called it an act of lunacy. The Dulles brothers never forgot that. Neither did Nixon. Recall, this is 1951-54. Before JFK has seriously thought about running for anything but senator. Then, Kennedy made one of the great speeches of his career on the other French colonial ordeal: Algeria. This one was so remarkable that it garnered something like 104 editorial comments nationwide. Most of them negative. Its a wonderful speech to read even today. Its in the Nevins edited Strategy of Peace book. Kennedy's ideas were his own. Developed on his own, with the confidence of a few select advisers and friends. Kennedy never felt at home with the upper classes. In fact, he would joke about the airs they put on with his girlfriend Inga Arvad. This is why at college, he never joined any of those secret societies, instead hanging out with a bunch of more or less regular guys. Then when he went into the service, he got out of a plum intelligence assignment to go on those dangerous PT boats with a bunch of grunts. This is not what children of the rich and privileged usually do. The true upper classes, the Astors, the Cabots, they actually looked down on the Kennedys. Because 1.) They were nouveau riche compared to them and 2.) The Kennedys were Irish Catholics. This is one reason that when JFK defeated Lodge for senator, he waited all night for the concessionary phone call. It never came. Kennedy was never a part of that Eastern Establishment crowd and he didn't like most of them, with a few exceptions like Robert Lovett. For instance, when he relieved Jock Whitney of his British ambassadorship he sent him a three line telegram: "Jock, Pack, Jack". He didn' t like the Rockefellers either. That is why on a trip to Venezuela, RFK told the people to nationalize their own oil. When they said that Davdi Rockefeller would send down the Marines, RFK replied: "The Kennedys eat the Rockefellers for breakfast." So when JFK wanted to get something done, he would bypass his Cabinet and his advisers like Rostow and Rusk and work through one trusted agent of his : like RFK on the Missile Crisis and McNamara and Galbraith on the Vietnam withdrawal plan. You have to be very careful in these waters. The Establishment has done all they could to cloud and camouflage who JFK was in the wake of his death. It reminds me of the scene in the movie Z, when the generals have a meeting after they have killed Montand, the Kennedy-like figure. One of them says, "Let's knock the halo off his head." Meaning of course, smear his legacy after they have had him murdered. In addition to the Mahoney book, you have to read The Kennedy Tapes, which is JFK unfiltered through the Missile Crisis. After you do, you will see that he never one of them. Jim: This is one of the most important posts I have ever seen. The changing of JFK is the only thing I did not agree with in JFKU. I remember JFK from the start. I was only 11 and in Canada, but he made a huge impression. His total lack of anything warlike or establishment was evident to this idealistic young Canadian girl. Your post explains a lot. I will share this with others. Dawn

"B.A>" That- True Ott- is his real name. I only know that because another friend of mine knows him through his alternative medecine work. Yes his stuff online re his JFK Jr. file is mindblowing. Did you ever have a copy of the Oliver Stone "George" piece, or read it? There is zero about THAT online except that it occurred. According to writer Jonathan Vankin ("Conspiracies Cover-Ups and Crimes") he was also asked to do a piece for "George" that John Jr. ultimately rejected because it dealt with too many side issues such as UFO's, and not felt by John to be sholarly enough. Obviously we know what Stone would write about!! John: I am in email contact with Paris Flammonde to see if he can locate the Castro speech. Will let you know. It really needs to be online. Dawn

Yes. He gave an amazing speech the day after the assassination that was recounted in the very first book on the Garrison case by Paris Flammonde. I first read it in 1975. The speech is also printed in Dr Martin Schotz' "History Will Not Absolve us". Years ago I tried to get Marty to scan it online for me so that it could be read by all. It is long and incredibly informed. My scanner died long ago and I am also working this busy Monday so if someone has this book perhaps he or she could scan some relevent parts as I don't have time to type even a portion. (I did type relevant portions many years back here on the forum so you could perhaps find via a search engine). Dawn That Fidel Castro speech DEFINITELY needs to be scanned and put on line! Fabulous book: Dr Martin Schotz' "History Will Not Absolve Us" Robert: I just did a google search and had zero luck. Do you have the book? Can you type some of it here? In particular the stuff on p 77-78, p 60-61, I simply do not have the time. And John definately read Brothers. And JFK and the Unspeakable. In 1972 I worked for George McGovern for president. I was a city coordinator in four different states. It was then that I learned first hand from former RFK workers who had been high up in RFK's presidential campagin that he knew about the coup that killed his bother and that as president he was going to expose it. Dawn

Yes. He gave an amazing speech the day after the assassination that was recounted in the very first book on the Garrison case by Paris Flammonde. I first read it in 1975. The speech is also printed in Dr Martin Schotz' "History Will Not Absolve us". Years ago I tried to get Marty to scan it online for me so that it could be read by all. It is long and incredibly informed. My scanner died long ago and I am also working this busy Monday so if someone has this book perhaps he or she could scan some relevent parts as I don't have time to type even a portion. (I did type relevant portions many years back here on the forum so you could perhaps find via a search engine). Dawn

"Terry" it's Maria who married Arnold. Frankie meant the wife of the Patsy. Which Terry knows. This is getting very old. Seeing my "sister's" views so mis-represented. Hard to continue to stay silent. Dawn

If 2 of my brothers, uncles, dads, relations, were publicly shot in the head and I witnessed their assassinations and consequent cover ups, I wouldn't go playing the hero. Especially if I had children of my own. I don't think the Kennedy's can take fault for not making waves. God knows I wouldn't. --------------------------------- Don't forget what they did to Ted. And then John Jr. A Kennedy cousin told me in 1997 that John studied this case and was going to do something about it. Look at all he was doing in Geroge mag, including an article by Oliver Stone ON conspiracy, but that particular mag has totally disappeared. Not online. I have been told about it by many but have yet to seee a copy. I do have a copy of Geroge where John Jr interviews Richard M. Scaife. And he also interviewed Castro. Anyone who has studied this case knows Castro knew the truth immediately. So to say that the Kennedy's remained silent is absurd. Bobby went to his death planning to unlock his brother's murder, as president. Then the got him. I just do not understand why this question keeps being asked. The answer is readily available. Dawn

A good little tease. Wonder how far he will go into his JFK investigation. Or William Colby's little "boating accident" after his Church Committee testimony.

I don't know what Roger is thinking. I thought there already is an organization COPA. And the majority of Americans already know that JFK was taken out by conspiracy, and the Z-film is one of the reasons why they think so. In addition, if anyone is interested in getting new information, new evidence into the record and new witness testimony, the one goal that everyone should agree on, regardless of ideology or beliefs, is that new sworn witness testimony should be obtained while the witnesses are still alive. Therefore, it should be clear that there should be Congressional Oversight of the JFK Act and public hearings on the destroyed, missing and wrongfully withheld records that were ordered released by the JFK Act. And if the Constitution is ever to be followed, there should be a special federal grand jury convened to take new witness testimony and review the evidence of crimes related to the assassination to determine if any individuals can be indicted for crimes related to the assassination, including perjury, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, homicide and conspiracy. The next significant JFK assassination conference will not be in Hawaii or Dallas but in Washington D.C. and it will be held to convince Congressmen to conduct the mandated hearings, and convince the Federal attorneys to convene a grand jury. If they feel that it is proper to convene a grand jury just to indict former baseball star Roger Clemmons for perjury for lying to Congress about steroid use, then certainly the assassination of the President deserves at least the same legal considerations. Bill Kelly Reply from Harvey (Yazijian) of AIB, Bill if you could please pass this on to Roger. The BK Harv is referring to is Bob Katz. Hi, Dawn. I'd like to hear Willy and BK weigh in, but I'd like to know why the name AIB is needed, by who, and for exactly what reason. By the way, I'm going to try to see Douglas when he speaks in Cambridge on 10/1. By the way, all the Tea Partiers who are going to vote voted yesterday. Turnout is much larger on election day; it remains to be seen how many will actually win. Harvey

Sept. 7, 2010 note from Roger Feinmann: Our legal eagles might wish to investigate the formal status of the old Assassination Information Bureau (AIB). Is the name available so that it can be used as an all-encompassing "umbrella" for the purpose of communicating with/to the general public on matters related to the 50th anniversary as previously outlined? Is there an available Internet domain name? There are people still around who would know. [Roger Bruce Feinman, J.D. BK, Bruce: I have just sent an email to the members of the AIB who are online: Harvery Yazijian, Dave Williams, and Bob Katz. After HSCA ended the AIB disbanded so I would believe that the name is available but, not wishing to make assumptions I copied the relevent part of Roger's post and sent. Will let you know when I hear back. Dawn

I don't see it either. Me either. I saw it in today's paper and the only interesting thing in the video part is the last line when he says he does not believe Oswald did it. Wonder how this got started. Kelso does humor..... Dawn

Hey thanks Bernice! Please check out my other blog on Jim Garrison: Conspiracy In New Orleans? Not much on there yet but there will be Martin P.S. Don't forget to subscribe LOL Martin: I assume you will also read Jim DiEugenio's seminal book Destiny Betrayed. Great stuff. Dawn

Thanks for posting it at both forums B. Yes I agree, to the top of the pops. Dawn

your welcome john, i thought first, in a long while a more pleasant human article on jfk, interesting info about the resolute desk also.. thanks, take care b . also here is a photo of the coconut he inscribed on with the message for help while stranded on the island in the south seas during the war, it was made into a desk weight...b Lovely piece. I am always so glad to see Jim Douglas' book being accorded such praise. Too bad he is not online to comment. Dawn

I have been listening to this great little tune for days now. Met Bob in Dallas last Nov. Great guy and very talanted. I wonder of Tom and Bill will listen. Dawn

Otto: Gary can say in private email anything he wants. The 6th Floor Museum presents the lone nut version and that Gary has emersed himself in THIS lie says it all. You cannot support the lie and the truth at the same time. Gary has chosen his side. Dawn

They do not seem mutually exclusive to me either. I was also in email contact with Judyth for years, off and on. She always answered any question I had and then some. I recently read Ed's book and found it completely credible, and I thank him for his courage in going after a story way bigger than the murder of a president. As to John's question of why they just did not kill Judyth, well that issue in general - who gets to live with this kind of knowledge- has dogged many a researcher for decades. The conspirators seem to enjoy sick games. Letting some live and simply be harrassed, discredited and tortured, as has been the case with Judyth since becoming public appears to be just one more evil little practice they employ. Like a cat with a mouse. Dawn

From what I read- quite some time ago now- all his JFK related files were taken as well. In fact that seemed to be the very motive of this malicious prosecution. Does anyone know if those things were returned to him? Yes, terrific interview. I do hope he finds more time to play his violin. Music sooths the soul. Dawn

All: That is still what is done, and at the same time the person is magistrated bond is set. I practiced law in MA for five years before relocating to Tx. in 1990 and there bond/bail hearings were also held and an attorney could argue why a person should be given a PR bond or at least a very low amount. In the jurisdictions where I practice in TX. defendant's are not automatically afforded that right, except in one instance: a person charged with a felony who is not indicted within ninety days is entitled to be freed on a PR bond. (Pursuant to a hearing, of course) Dawn

I do not think anyone has a clue EXACTLY how many shots were fired. We just know it had to be more than three. Because this guy believes it was 11 does not discredit him in my opinion. That he is 80 years old, former FBI and speaking out against the absurd fairy tale is something we need more of. And yes the LNs do have a big problem with Milteer. Just can't explain him away. Dawn

Responding to them is also a total waste of time. I'm responding to the responders just to ask why they're responding. What's the point? Shouldn't CTs be totally immune to this kind of ad hominem garbage (we're all just a bunch of irrational idiots) by now? Ron: Perfect solution. If everyone just ignored these people they really WOULD go away. Then true information sharing, debate, and intelligent discourse would occur. Forums would become places of learning for future generations. Sigh.... Dawn

Can and will be overcome? Chance to voice their objections? You already stated that it can be demonstrated that things couldn't have happened the way the Warren Report described it. Sounds like your mind is already made up. What is the point of debating it? Are they going to offer something new that convinces you Oswald did it by himself? Their objections were overcome more than forty years ago. I suppose some still will be wasting their time attempting to overcome objections from Warren Report believers a hundred years from now. As far as I'm concerned it is a slight to the memory and brave efforts of the first generation critics to believe today that the veracity of the Warren Report is still debatable. Bill: Tell us one time here on the Ed Forum where a LN has changed his or her mind in the face of reasoned debate and overwhelming evidence. They are not here to debate or learn. They post in places like this to confuse, waste time, and spread disinformation. THAT is their only agenda. Odd that you and others would welcome this. Dawn

Well, sort of. Actually, Bugliosi's book was published after mine, so my book can hardly be accused of being a rehash of his. Still, it is in the same spirit, no question (his being 10000 times better than mine). Add Jim Moore, Dale Myers and Larry Sturdivan as sources of inspiration, and also critical thinkers such as Martin Gardner or Paul Kurtz. Plus I have added a lenghty discussion, and arguments such as a comparison between the Kennedy assassination and the French Dreyfus case. And YES, a big yes, I am a "Case closed" fan. So, if all of that makes you want to discount me, that is perfectly your right. Well, yes and no. Of course, discussing or debating over History is perfectly honorable and I enjoy it myself. We could talk for months about questions such as : What if Charles de Gaulle had not gone to England in 1940 ? Was Napoleon a great man ? Could the Vietnam war have been averted ? What did Eisenhower exactly mean when he said "The military industrial complex" ? Could Hitler have won the war against Russia if he had not made such big mistakes (as in Stalingrad) ? What can really explain Chamberlain's attitude toward Germany in the thirties ? And ancient Rome, what about their political regime ? And is democra&cy the best regime ? Was Churchill the greatest man of the twentieth century ? And so on, so forth... But Kennedy assassination forums are NOT in the same league. To me debating the Kennedy assassination is like debating obvious facts. It is a waste of time. It is a fact that Oswald was the sole assassin. And conspiracy theorists have uncovered nothing of substance to show otherwise. Asking "Was Oswald really the sole assassin ?", is like asking "Is the Eiffel tower really in Paris ?", "Did Obama really succeed Bush ?", "Is New York City really on the East coast and Los Angeles on the West Coast ?", "Is 2 + 2 really 4 ?", "Is Canada really bigger than Spain ?" etc. That's not debating history, that's wasting one's time. But, again, what's the point in writing that ? I know nobody listens, anyway... /François Carlier/ So then why are YOU "wasting (your) time here bud? Jim D shows up and boom, the lone nutters come crawling out like some kind of cockroaches. Methinks the purpose is to WASTE HIS TIME, dealing with these Langley wanna bes.

I just finished Ed Haslam's book Dr Mary's Monkey and for anyone to say Judyth "adds nothing new" I say read this book and I suspect your mind will be opened. I could not put this book down! The world owes Ed Haslam a great debt for getting this story out. His synchronistic experiences are mind boggling. A conspiracy within a HUGE conspiracy. I eagerly await Judyth's book. Dawn